Re: [patch] tree-cfg.c: Speed up cleanup_tree_cfg().

[Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>]

On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 10:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 04:41:49PM +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> > Kazu Hirata wrote:
> > 
> > > I am wondering if we actually need the gcc_assert().  I'll leave it up
> > > to you to decide whether we should keep it.
> > 
> > My understanding is that assertions which involve non trivial calculations
> > should be guarded by ENABLE_CHECKING.
> 
> That's exactly what Kazu's patch does:
> 
> + #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
> +   if (retval)
> +     gcc_assert (!cleanup_control_flow ());
> + #endif
> 

So gcc_assert() isn't a direct replacement for ENABLE_CHECKING? I was
under the impression that the contents of the gcc_assert went away when
you disabled checking...

  gcc_assert (cond);
becomes
  0 && cond;
or some such thing.

Is this not true sometimes?

Andrew